Could America have used heavy tanks?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


238mm at what range? That won't go through the frontal armour then, as it is 225 mm {IIRC} and sloped so that its effective thickness is more. You know more about guns armour than me, but from what I understand the Tortoise was specifically designed to withstand direct hits from the feared 88 mm, which the Sherman couldn't hope to do. The designers tested the armour vs. an actual 88mm gun


Can't argue with that Soren.
 
By the time the allies figured out they needed heavy tanks, the war was lost for Germany, and it ended before the US could deploy only a couple hundred Pershings

Had the war lasted several months more, the allies would have had effective designs would have been fielded and able to take on the German heavy tanks on equal terms.

There was nothing "magical" about the Germans being the only ones able to desgn and build tanks.
 
Soren,

I personally agree that the Germans were also one step ahead of the Allies in tank design (except in '39 - '41 when the T-34 was the greatest tank in the world). But I would not say that they were incapable of designing and producing heavy tanks. The Pershing was unreliable, yes, but the main problem was politics holding the machine up in the U.S.A. - the Pershing was capable of battling German tanks and the Super Pershing (only one built) was a very effective tank killing machine. Yes, the war was almost over but the proof was there that the Western Allies had the technology. The Centurion further strengthens that idea; the British were on par with German armour designs and only improving when the Centurion arrived.

For the Western Allies it was mostly politics and inferior doctrine that hindered the progress of heavy armour deployment. By '44 the Allies were relying on heavy weight in artillery and airpower to clear the way for the armour - in some respects, that's the way it should be done - but the Allies didn't quite grasp the speed of which the armour breakthrough should be achieved.
 
freebird said:
238mm at what range? That won't go through the frontal armour then, as it is 225 mm {IIRC} and sloped so that its effective thickness is more.
Click to expand...

With the Pzgr.39/43 (APCBC (HE)) the 88mm KwK3 L/71 gun punches through 238mm of 240 BHN RHA armor (The highest quality armor the Allies could produce), this is at 0 degree's (Vertical) and 100m. At 300m it punched through 225mm.

With the Pzgr.41/43 (APCR) the KwK43 punches through 307mm of armor at 300m, and 225mm at 1,745m.

You know more about guns armour than me, but from what I understand the Tortoise was specifically designed to withstand direct hits from the feared 88 mm, which the Sherman couldn't hope to do.
Click to expand...

Yes the 88mm KwK36 L/56, the KwK43 L/71 is an entirely different beast.

The designers tested the armour vs. an actual 88mm gun
Click to expand...

IIRC against a 88mm FlaK 18/36 or KwK36.
 

They weren't incapable, but they failed to focus their attention to this area from as early on as the Germans.

The Pershing was unreliable, yes, but the main problem was politics holding the machine up in the U.S.A. - the Pershing was capable of battling German tanks and the Super Pershing (only one built) was a very effective tank killing machine.
Click to expand...

Still it was too weakly armoured armed. And although the Super Pershing addressed the issue with the armament, the armor was still the same, inadequate.

Also the Super Pershing AFAIK only had one engagement in the war, where it hit the lower frontal hull of a Tiger Ausf.B as it drove up a rubble embankment. A very lucky scenario against a very inexpertly driven Panzer. (Probably had a HJ crew)



Yes, the war was almost over but the proof was there that the Western Allies had the technology.
Click to expand...

They might have had the tecnology, but not the know how. Also the optics only got improved after the war after studying the German equipment.

The Centurion further strengthens that idea; the British were on par with German armour designs and only improving when the Centurion arrived.
Click to expand...

British weren't on par with the Germans in regards to heavy tank design, they were behind. But the British were the closest nonetheless.

That having been said the Centurion was almost on par with the Panther, so the British were closing the gap by 45. But remember the Panther was a medium tank by German definition, not a heavy tank. The Tiger Ausf.B was from the beginning of its introduction and till the end of WW2 the best armed armoured tank of WW2.

Also to further prove the German dominance in tank design they had already finished designing and were on their way contructing a new tank series, the E-series, of which the E-100 would be the new std. heavy series tank armed with the 128mm KwK44 L/61 gun. Furthermore the Germans had already designed, build tested the enormous Maus tank, a bunker on tracks.

When it came to heavy tanks, the German were way ahead from 42 and onwards, and mostly thanks to their high interest on the subject of heavy breakthrough tanks and their high level of research testing in the area.
 
The Super Pershing almost destroyed a few other AFVs after its King Tiger encounter; I believe a Panther was made a victim of the Super Pershing the day after the VI ausf B met its fate - but how the fight progressed I haven't a clue.

You are absolutely right on the optical equipment, but at the standard combat ranges of World War II (400 - 600 metres) the Western Allies had optical equipment good enough to hit their target.

"That having been said the Centurion was almost on par with the Panther, so the British were closing the gap by 45. But remember the Panther was a medium tank by German definition, not a heavy tank. The Tiger Ausf.B was from the beginning of its introduction and till the end of WW2 the best armed armoured tank of WW2.

Also to further prove the German dominance in tank design they had already finished designing and were on their way contructing a new tank series, the E-series, of which the E-100 would be the new std. heavy series tank armed with the 128mm KwK44 L/61 gun. Furthermore the Germans had already designed, build tested the enormous Maus tank, a bunker on tracks."

While this is all true, what you fail to notice is the day of the super heavy tank never came. If the war had continued the Germans would have been foolish to continue their testing and attempted production of those grossly over-engineered monsters.

Post-War armour shows us how armoured warfare progressed; the Germans seemed to be stuck in the mindset that bigger is better and frankly that's not the case when it comes to AFVs.

The Centurion, in my opinion, was the most advanced design in the Western Allied arsenal and it was the future (so much so that it served until the '60s). The way forward for Germany should have been the Panther, all other machines should have been abandoned to the medieval ages of armoured warfare - tanks are not land based battleships; that's something Germany did not realise.

The Panther ausf F should have been at the forefront of Germany's design and production priority list. The Centurion was the future for Britain. The Pershing was the future for the U.S.A. The IS-3 was the future for the Soviet Union.

The day was coming for the MBT - there was no place for the super heavy tanks post-world war II.
 
Plan_D,

Although we mostly agree I wouldn't call the E-100 a super heavy tank. The Maus most certainly (Like I said, a bunker on tracks), but not the E-100.

The E-100 was a very promising design, and with the 128mm KwK44 L/61 gun it would've also been the by far the deadliest tank on the battlefield. With sabot rounds the KwK44 would turn any tank inside out past 4km with ease (The gun has a larger charge capacity than the modern 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun), and the by then newly developed range finder equipment (Which the Allies also copied along with the optics designs) meant extreme accuracy at long ranges.

And on top of this the Germans were already deploying infrared equipment on their tanks, a group of Panthers effectively utilizing their new infrared sights to target and knock out a large group of Sherans during a night attack.

And in addition to the extremely powerful accurate armament and night fighting capability, the E-100 also featured extremely good protection, being very heavily armoured, and thus ofcourse also heavy. But the powerful 800 HP engine (Possibly a 1,000 HP engine instead) would've also made sure that the weight was acceptable, providing an equal power to weight ratio as on previous Panzers.

Furthermore the Germans had also completed designing the Tiger Ausf.L E90:

E100 (With MAUS turret) E90
 
There is no doubt without question that the Germans were ahead of the rest of the world in tank design.
If we are looking at second place its nice of Soren to say that the British were closest but I would have to give that title to the Russians.

There equipment, might have been simple and of poor quality but they did carry a decent gun, at a decent speed, with decent armour, was reasionably reliable and had a better than average cross county ability.

Allied Genrals must have had a heart attack when they first saw the JSIII in the victory parades.
 
JS-3 looked good from the outside, but its poor optics gun really let it down. Also seeing that the Sabot round was in development the JS-3 wasn't going to prove to much of a heart ache.

The British were the closest to the Germans, they proved that with the Centurion, a tank which after the war came to utilize allot of the equipment used in German tanks during the war. And look at how well the Centurion did against the Soviet tanks.
 
Soren said:
The British were the closest to the Germans, they proved that with the Centurion, a tank which after the war came to utilize allot of the equipment used in German tanks during the war. And look at how well the Centurion did against the Soviet tanks.
Click to expand...

Yes the British did have some really good stuff, too bad it came out in 1946-1947...

You can also include the Battleship "Vanguard" and the Aircraft Carrier "Implacable" which was completed in a blistering fast 5 1/2 years!

Did anyone tell these people that there's a war going on?

The British tank development really was poor up until 1942-43, as you point out the Churchill was a rather disappointing design, the Crusader was also unrelible weak.

The few who really did understand modern mech. warfare were ignored.
Col. Worthington in Canada was reponsible for much of the development of the "Ram', he wanted to put a 75mm or better gun on the tank, but was over-ruled by the British tank commission.

"Why would anyone want a gun bigger than the 2 pounder? It's a perfectly good gun"
 
mkloby said:
Maybe that line of thinking falls in line with the 14 inchers on King George V...
Click to expand...

The 14" guns were limited by treaty, and by the time they realized that nobody else was going to adhere to the treaty, it was 1936/1937 and it was considered too late or to costly to re-design to a higher caliber. No such excuse for the tank guns, the war had already started, and by late 1940 it was already very obvious that the 2 pounder was too small.
 

From what I recall - which may be wrong - the Americans developed a quad 14"/triple 16" turret that could be swapped out for just such a case...
 
SoD Stitch said:
I'll check on that; I've got an excellent reference book on the Iowa-class BB's. I'm assuming that the dual turret set-up was designed for them. I'll let y'all know . . . . .
Click to expand...

Actually it was the North Carolinas - I'm away from home and can't reference any of my books...
 
mkloby said:
From what I recall - which may be wrong - the Americans developed a quad 14"/triple 16" turret that could be swapped out for just such a case...
Click to expand...

I think you are right, by the time the Carolina's came along the treaty was pretty much DOA. The Germans also designed the triple 11" turret on Scharnhorst to be swapped for twin 15"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Interwar examples where a heavy presence might have made a difference?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
1938/1939, USA, England, France - Would Have? Could Have? Should Have?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
5K
Thumpalumpacus
W
What effect would a cross channel tunnel have on WW2?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Airframes
S
M2 Brownings on tanks, AFVs, trucks, jeeps, sidecars or bicycles.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Snautzer01
M
What would this WWII airfield have looked like, in terms of infrastructure?
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register